Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: Yes

Date of Decision: July 24, 2025

Purpose: There is an ongoing issue of antisocial behaviour in the Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate areas. The causes are complex. The Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) is recognised by partner agencies as an effective tool for dealing with such behaviour.   Council officers gathered and analysed  the evidence base for the restrictions proposed in the draft PSPO considered by Cabinet. Cabinet was also asked to conscientiously consider the results of a comprehensive consultation with residents, voluntary groups and statutory consultees including the local chief officer of police; the police and crime commissioner; owners or occupiers of land within the affected area. Having carefully considered the evidence base and the results of consultation Cabinet reviewed each of the proposed restrictions.

Content: Cabinet:   1.  Gave full consideration to the results of statutory consultation, the results of which are attached at appendices 3, 4 and 5, in relation to the proposed PSPO;   2.  Considered the evidence base detailed in the statements attached to this report for a PSPO in the terms set out at appendix 2 of the Cabinet report;   3.  Approved the PSPO as drafted and attached at appendix 1 to the Cabinet report.

Reasons for the decision: Cabinet considered all of the available evidence and gave careful consideration to the results of consultation. Cabinet took the view that the statutory grounds for a PSPO, that is to say that the activities referred to and carried within the restricted areas have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality and that the effect, or likely effect, of the activities is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature, and is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and justifies each of the restrictions imposed by the notice.

Alternative options considered: Cabinet carefully considered the alternative options set out in the report, including concerns expressed about some of the individual restrictions. It concluded that, in each case, the statutory tests were satisfied and the restrictions proposed were proportionate and necessary.